Final: Chiefs v Crusaders
-
In a shock move, I agree with Foster!
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@antipodean sure is. I said at the start of the season that Hall was a big loss given how he had played for us. Drummond played a lot better in the last month, but there’s still a number of things that frustrate me about his play.
Surely Hotham to overtake him next year? Is your high priced English superstar reserve halfback going to play again next year?
Wonder why the good young halfbacks are coming out of the Waikato these days? Roigard, Hotham and Ratima all look to be potential ABs (although Ratima suffered a bit of second season syndrome this year).
-
-
@george33 on NOck, when it was rumoured he'd be leaving last year and supposedly issues with Leon, I thought he re-signed for 2 years?
-
@taniwharugby The duration of his contract was never published by the Blues.
-
@taniwharugby said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
on NOck, when it was rumoured he'd be leaving last year and supposedly issues with Leon, I thought he re-signed for 2 years?
He's halfway through a two year deal if Steve Harris was correct
-
@Steven-Harris said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Nepia i really dont think World Rugby does any favours for the officials
Limited powers to the TMO on forward passes is massive one for me , i have no doubt despite the on field officials all missing the forward pass thrown by Jack Goodhue , Brendon Pickerall the TMO along with everyone who was watching the game saw that it was forward , the irony is had the Crusaders scored off that play it would have been bought back for a forward pass .
How crazy is that ..?, for me you your leaving your officials in quite the pickle .D Mac being pulled up for being in the 10 was an interesting one as well , imagine if the ball was dropped in the act of scoring , its probably unlikely the referee and the TMO go back to look at D Macs infraction .
I get the clarity in and around the non awarding of the try , but you do wonder if it had been picked up if there was no try
No wonder many are confusedI'm completely with you @Steven-Harris!
Apart from dicking with the brittle sensitivities of the Jesters fans, there is a very serious point, which you're on to.
Recall that if that game had been played before video technology both non-tries would have been awarded, the Jesters fans would have been bitching that the second Narawa try was bogus, to which the gloating Chiefs fans would fairly have countered that the benefit was negated by the Mo'unga 'try'.
The introduction of technology was supposed to improve rugby and avoid heinous mistakes leading to incorrect results.
The final illustrates, as you have observed, that the protocols are flawed.
On the Narawa non-try the protocols allowed TMO to review back to the DMac take inside the 15: tick.
On the Mo'unga non-try the protocols quite obviously shouldn't allow the TMO to go back before the Jesters lineout. Tick (so far). Of course, Angus Gardner should have flagged it real time, but he pulled a 'Kaplan' somehow.
BUT, if the TMO is remotely competent (questionable) he ought to have noticed the forward pass real time. To the extent the protocols don't currently allow the TMO before the next break in play to point out glaring errors they ought to. Cross.If TMO, so empowered, had indicated to BOK twenty seconds later that he'd missed a glaring forward pass I have no doubt BOK would have called play back and awarded minor premiers scrum on half way.
The RWC2024 organisers have already added a second TMO (located off site in Paris) to improve the poor quality of recent TMO decision making.
The onus needs to be on NZRU, SANZAR and World Rugby to sort the technology protocols out to avoid repeats of Saturday's debacle. It's ironical that had Cane had a captain's review he'd have been able to have the forward pass checked!
-
-
@Chris said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Hahaha Crusaders won it, I love these posts it relives the victory all over again I came keep reliving the Victory weeks after the final.
True, enjoy these sweet sweet salty tears. Because it is very obvious some that proclaim neutrality because they support one of the other 3, hate the crusaders. Which is fine, but don't claim neutrality - is a bit like I support NZ, or anyone playing Oz. One forward pass, leading to a line out, is not a game winning moment. There were dodgy calls both ways, and the bloody crusaders did their (under razor) thing and just fucking well won. Best team on the pitch and thoroughly deserved win. At the time for your best performance, saders brought it
-
Hey @pakman, have you noticed that no-one else has supported you with your curious little attempt at a new nickname for the Crusaders?
Do you think maybe because there's nothing really very clever, funny or in/appropriate about it?
Unlike maybe calling the Chiefs and the fans "The Ferals" from now on.
The Ferals.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@pakman what about the TMO's decision to not red ALB? You've left that out.
That’s not protocols. Incompetent TMO. Which is why there are two at RWC.
